Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GeordieSaint

Eagles for SL

550 posts in this topic

I don't think it proves anything particularly but I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy. How Parky can argue one thing about Welsh and London clubs needing to be in SL before they start to produce SL level players and then argue the exact opposite with regard to Sheffield.

Your falling over yourself to have a go as usual.

Mr. Hughes has pumped millions into London and Crusaders put a lot of investment in. All that money would not have been available to the game, and would not have helped promote junior RL in these areas had these clubs not been given access to Super League.

In direct contrast Sheffield have no money.

It's always about money and that is the big big difference.

If someone wants to put £2,000,000 a year into Sheffield and adopt the Midlands as their junior breeding ground fine - let's have them.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel put not a penny into junior rugby league in Wales and nor did he put £2 million a year into Crusaders. No club has less cash than Crusaders, they still owe cash to their former players.

Hughes puts in this kind of cash and still Broncos have no money.

But we are talking hypothetically here, even Eagles fans know that the club doesn't have the finances yet. You said that the club doesn't have the money or the players. If they had the cash, they would be able to get the players, Sheffield is close enough to West Yorkshire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Sheffield or Fev or any other potential SL applicant finds an investor. The reaction from the various naysayers would be interesting. To defend some of the entrenched status quo set in stone licencees would test even their powers of argument.

It will happen at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't possibly begin to answer all of the points above, but here are a few!

Players - Development in the schools within Sheffield plus Rotherham, Barnsley and North Derbyshire continues apace. The amateur clubs have started to bear fruit, albeit small acorns. It takes time and assistance, to be fair, the RFL haven't, to my knowledge, provided much of the latter.

Fans - In my little group (we needed more than one taxi for the GF) we live in Rotherham, Barnsley, Chesterfield, Worksop as well as Sheffield. It therefore stands to reason that you're not just trying to attract the fans of the two Sheffield footy clubs (Most of them are so far up their own jacksy anyway you wouldn't want them anywhere near a rugby match) and so marketing has to go much further afield. In reality, every supporter has to bring a couple of new ones with them and we're well above the mystical 2500.

Stadium - Get the hell out of DVS and IMO, BL as well. A small stadium isn't readily available, Millmoor was mentioned, adequate at best (although funnily enough better facilities than a lot of Champ grounds and (borrowed from YCCC) aside, not that far behind the likes of Headingley. IMO, real overtures must be made to the Millers. A stadium better than all in SL with the exception of the KC and maybe Snellins. The stumbling block is the club moving out of Sheffield and the willingness of Tony Stewart at RUFC (who already turned down Rotherham RU due to local politics) but who is desparate for the New York Stadium to turn a dollar.

Finances - We make a profit. With more fans, we make a bigger profit and/or we spend more on wages, but the club is better run than loads, we thank Ian Swire et al for that.

We may or may not make the application, but knowing Mark and Ian, we'll make it when they think we're ready at all levels.

Part of me wants to be back in SL, part of me not, I quite like going to the Mount, Dewsbury and Fev!

You seem to be forgetting that Doncaster will also be tapping into the South Yorkshire areas as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about Don Valley Stadium and, for different reasons, Bramall Lane.

Personally though, I reckon the new(ish) stadium at Chesterfield might be a better bet, particularly if the club is serious in its aim to 'claim' the midlands.

http://www.theproactstadium.co.uk/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel put not a penny into junior rugby league in Wales and nor did he put £2 million a year into Crusaders. No club has less cash than Crusaders, they still owe cash to their former players.

Hughes puts in this kind of cash and still Broncos have no money.

But we are talking hypothetically here, even Eagles fans know that the club doesn't have the finances yet. You said that the club doesn't have the money or the players. If they had the cash, they would be able to get the players, Sheffield is close enough to West Yorkshire.

London and Wales have produced Superleague players, Sheffield haven't get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Sheffield or Fev or any other potential SL applicant finds an investor. The reaction from the various naysayers would be interesting.

It's very simple. If a club can find someone to put a couple of million pounds a year into SL they get a place.

If a club can't find any investment and they are skint they don't get a place.

Nobody is a naysayer or against any club (well solly may be) It's just a reality that you need............

Now you say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the RFL, North Derbyshire Chargers and Derby City who provide the funding for the Community Coach who has built up the activity in North Derbyshire and it is the RFL who have provided significant investment into other posts at the Eagles that cover South Yorkshire (as they have the other professional clubs in the country).

Shhhh, you'll break the magic spell of spin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London and Wales have produced Superleague players, Sheffield haven't get over it.

Hypocrisy again.

London and Wales didn't before joining SL and you have a go at Sheffield.

Just how flat can a cap be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy again.

If it suits you, but we beg to differ.

London and Wales have a long association with Rugby League and there were investors there to put money in and it helped towards developing SL players. No history and no money in Sheffield so sadly that's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London and Wales have produced Superleague players, Sheffield haven't get over it.

Complete and utter hypocrisy that you're still using this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and utter hypocrisy that you're still using this argument.

We will beg to differ until the day you can remain civil in what is, as you say yourself, just a message board for discussing Rugby League. Look to your own Hippocracy my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will beg to differ until the day you can remain civil in what is, as you say yourself, just a message board for discussing Rugby League. Look to your own Hippocracy my friend.

It is hypocritical to argue that Sheffield should already have players in SL, but Wales need a SL club in order to produce them. You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hypocritical to argue that Sheffield should already have players in SL, but Wales need a SL club in order to produce them. You can't have it both ways.

I never said Sheffield should have players in SL. I never said Wales needed an SL club to produce them.

The private money available to London and Wales to run in Superleague helped the junior scene move on apace in both places and today we see SL players from those places.

Should millions be available to Sheffield fine, let them have a go at SL and have a go developing Sheffield born players to expand the player pool. After all they have the advantage of plenty of junior teams close by to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't make sense of your figures - Sheffield already have a player payroll cost. On your figures the Sky money covers the payroll.

Sorry - forgot to reply.

It seems quite logical that if such as Sheffield are spending several hundred thousand on players already, then when they pick up over £1,000,000 a year from SKY this can then mean that they can pay full salary cap in SL.

It doesn't work like that though as clubs entering SL are required to have significant backroom staff for marketing and running an academy, and many other costs and expenses are created.

The easiest way to look at this is look at the clubs who struggle financially - such as Cas and Bradford. They struggle on 8,000 and 10,000 gates respectively. Sheffield will not get those gates.

HKR lost £500K on gates of nearly 8,000 and declared they needed 10,000 fans to break even. That says to me even if Sheffield could put 6,000 through the turnstiles they are looking at £1,000,000 a year loss.

Sheffield are close enough to west yorkshire to get players, but this works two ways. If ever they produced a quality Superleague star they would not be able to hang onto him as a rich club up the road would take that player. There's not enough quality players about - Cas and HKR can't hang onto theirs even on gates approaching 8,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Sheffield should have players in SL. I never said Wales needed an SL club to produce them.

Then why do you keep bringing up how many players each have in the SL at present?!

The private money available to London and Wales to run in Superleague helped the junior scene move on apace in both places and today we see SL players from those places.

What money did Crusaders have? I seem to recall they ran out of it twice in three years of SL, but it didn't stop you championing their inclusion, or the top-down method.

Should millions be available to Sheffield fine, let them have a go at SL and have a go developing Sheffield born players to expand the player pool. After all they have the advantage of plenty of junior teams close by to play.

They've said themselves they aren't ready yet, but you've made it out like they never will be. I just don't see why having Sheffirld-based SL players at present is ANY sort of indicator to their application. So why keep bringing it up? It's a complete mute point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Why do you keep bringing up how many players each have in the SL at present?!

2. What money did Crusaders have?

3. (sheffield) have said themselves they aren't ready yet, but you've made it out like they never will be. I just don't see why having Sheffield-based SL players at present is ANY sort of indicator to their application.

1. There's a heavy shortage of quality players at the moment. For some years the RFL have required SL entrants to produce players of their own. This is the stated reason London are in SL - for the pro player pool. Their academy creates pro players. One has just travelled up to sign for HKR.

2. Not a lot but then again at the time of their inclusion in SL what money did Halifax, Salford, Wakey, Widnes, Leigh, Fev and Castleford have? What losses are HKR making today?? The RFL took Crusaders into SL clearly knowing it would be a struggle and bent over backwards for them and they may have been here today if Wakey had not found their investor.

The RFL had their eyes on Crusaders being the conduit for welsh players to develop through the junior and academy system, as Swansea Jack? said the clubs inclusion in SL boosted the junior scene. Crusaders may have been a money leaking mess but as usual people jumped on that and declared the RFL fools, but they didn't say anything about the other financial messes up north.

The RFL continue to focus on Wales tying up links between SL clubs and the Scorpions and Crusaders, only on Monday they declared this as creating a clear pathway for players in new areas to see a route to Superleague.

I focus on the production of players because many people say it doesn't matter if your academy is not local born, you can sign quality kids from elsewhere. However that's no good unless "elsewhere" is producing the players and on the whole they are not. Looking at the facts hotbeds of junior RL like Cumbria, Hunslet, Oldham, Halifax produce few SL players

3. And so for me the RFL want clubs to primarily develop their own players. Without any money man Sheffield cannot run in SL with a competitive team and an effective academy. There's few local kids to sign and everyone else i.e. richer clubs will be chasing the same kids outside of Sheffield the Eagles have their eyes on.

South Yorkshire is a heavy soccer area with little rugby anyway, London and wales have bigger "rugby" cultures to tap into and our game has had some success. I see a difference, which is fair enough to suggest.

To answer your point the main indicator to their application is their lack of a rich investor, but they will struggle to produce players - how many years do you think they could last in SL after all HKR have hit buffers after six with a lot of fans and private money?

I'm not having a go here, but if you can set out the "virtuous circle" of how Sheffield can build "bottom up" and one day be ready for Superleague, to counter my suggestion it may never happen (because of circumstance) then I would be very interested in your thoughts.

Of course if it involved someone coming along and committing £2M a year to the club for many years that "top down" could be viable. It has to date seen such as LMS and Caro exported north and London born lads in a Broncos team that put 62 points on Wire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to have this heated debate but the club itself says it's not yet ready for $uperleague. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it suits you, but we beg to differ.

London and Wales have a long association with Rugby League and there were investors there to put money in and it helped towards developing SL players. No history and no money in Sheffield so sadly that's that.

History is nothing. Hunslet have an enormous history behind them but what is it worth today?

Sheffield need a backer or dramatically larger crowds that we can agree on but you seem to be adamant that this a permanent issue.

Sheffield are just as likely to find that guy as half a dozen other sides and would have a better fanbase (as a SL side) that Broncos and possibly Crusaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Yorkshire is a heavy soccer area with little rugby anyway, London and wales have bigger "rugby" cultures to tap into and our game has had some success. I see a difference, which is fair enough to suggest.

It's debatable whether this is really an asset or not. In Wales, there are a lot of quality youngsters who played union and can switch to league but probably won't because the money is better in union. It might fairly easy to get a summer league together but difficult to make it more than this.

In London, union players don't switch very often and whilst London might have a strong union culture, the growth areas are those where union is very weak. The London kids coming through at Broncos may never have played union at all.

It's like that in Scotland, Edinburgh has the "rugby culture" but Glasgow has the most RL players because RU isn't played in working class areas of the city and league offers an alternative to soccer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's debatable whether this is really an asset or not. In Wales, there are a lot of quality youngsters who played union and can switch to league but probably won't because the money is better in union. It might fairly easy to get a summer league together but difficult to make it more than this.

In London, union players don't switch very often and whilst London might have a strong union culture, the growth areas are those where union is very weak. The London kids coming through at Broncos may never have played union at all.

It's like that in Scotland, Edinburgh has the "rugby culture" but Glasgow has the most RL players because RU isn't played in working class areas of the city and league offers an alternative to soccer.

Thanks for that view. Quite insightful.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. History is nothing. Hunslet have an enormous history behind them but what is it worth today?

2. Sheffield need a backer or dramatically larger crowds that we can agree on but you seem to be adamant that this a permanent issue.

3. Sheffield are just as likely to find that guy as half a dozen other sides and would have a better fanbase (as a SL side) that Broncos and possibly Crusaders.

1. Oh come on Solly history teaches us a heck of a lot.

2. I can't see a backer for sheffield...........

3. Because it seems from the historical record the people who want to back Superleague tend to have an affinity with the game or a club and tend to only go for clubs big enough to be able to get somewhere.

There are exceptions to the last rule - Wilko and Hughes plough oceans of money in.

But again my bottom line is Sheffield is a soccer city and the businessmen there get on board at the soccer clubs. I work for two of them. It's a very long shot that someone with sheds of money will pick up the Eagles. far more chance of rich businessmen picking up Fax, leigh, Fev, Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, York, Workington, Hunslet etc etc where there have been clubs for many years and where some of their fans could have made it big and want to take the club into SL. If it ain't happening there then it ain't happening in sheffield.

BESIDES the last 18 months or so has seen most of those who fund Superleague start to draw back from writing out large checks. It could certainly be the case in 2015 that you may not be allowed to include directors loans into business plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the Eagles constitution states that one person cannot be a majority shareholder. That may put off some of the more dubious investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BESIDES the last 18 months or so has seen most of those who fund Superleague start to draw back from writing out large cheques. It could certainly be the case in 2015 that you may not be allowed to include directors loans into business plans.

That would bu99er up a number of clubs in $uperleague and change the whole structure of the game.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Parksider. Whether it's for ever is something else ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the Eagles constitution states that one person cannot be a majority shareholder. That may put off some of the more dubious investors.

That could change too.

Though I'd rather it didn't .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 24th July 2017